There were two issues to be resolved by the Nuvilik radio controller before the restriction issued by the Ungava NADS controller could be issued to the aircraft. The first was the separation problem to be resolved with BFF200 before altering the route of N8MC. Secondly, the Nuvilik radio controller did not have a clear mental picture of where the coordinate 64N 070W was in relation to the flight; therefore, he was reluctant to issue this restriction until separation with the inbound BFF200 was assured. The radio controller did not have access to a plotting board as there was none at the sector at the time, and he could not off-centre his radar display because he was controlling traffic in the southern part of the combined sector. As a result, there was a delay in passing the revised clearance to the aircraft. The North specialty controller would have been aware that the coordinates for the altitude restriction for N8MC were close to Iqaluit, necessitating a quick relay to the aircraft in order to give the crew time to comply with this restriction. The North specialty controller, unaware that the Nuvilik radio controller was busy with other control duties, expected that the restriction would be passed immediately upon receipt. The fact that none of the Nuvilik sector controllers had a clear mental picture of the proximity of the restriction point to the point of departure further delayed the issuing of the information to the aircraft. The Nuvilik data controller became concerned that the restriction was not being passed, so in an effort to assist the radio controller, he plotted the revised course for N8MC on a vacant radar display and used the RBL function to plot the original and amended tracks for N8MC. In the rush to complete the task, the coordinates for the original track were entered in error, causing an RBL to be displayed that showed a false original track in relation to the amended track. The data controller did not intentionally plan to enter the wrong coordinates into the RDPS computer, resulting in an unintentional action that did not go as planned. This type of error occurs where actions are based on stored routines and there is little, if any, conscious decision making, as for example the largely automatic procedural routines of entering information to generate an RBL. The pre-conditions to these types of errors are distractions or preoccupations with other than the immediate task. In this case, incorrectly plotting the aircraft's position by the data controller was an error of inattention. As a result of the time pressures felt by the data controller, in that the aircraft was nearing Brevoort controlled airspace, the controller did not adequately check the coordinates he had entered before executing the command to display the RBL. The North specialty controller had two advantages over the Nuvilik controllers with respect to the altitude restriction as it applied to N8MC. Firstly, the North specialty was equipped with a NADS, which provided a visual display of the track based on the coordinates entered by the controller, as well as data derived from the flight plan. Secondly, the North specialty controllers were used to working with latitude and longitude coordinates on a routine basis, so they were familiar with the impact a change would have on the current track of an aircraft. The NADS is not available to the Nuvilik sector control positions. The North specialty controllers did not offer additional information to the Nuvilik sector controllers regarding the impact of the restriction on the initial track of N8MC, and the Nuvilik data controller chose to plot out the new track himself rather than ask the North specialty controllers. Strained communication between the North and East specialties affected the ease with which control information should have been exchanged and was more apparent between certain individuals than others. The Nuvilik data controller did not ask the North supervisor for clarification. The operation of the ATC system is dependant on complete and timely coordination between units in order to provide a safe and efficient environment for users of the system. Supervisors, as the first line of oversight within a particular unit, must be particularly aware of brewing conflicts and take immediate steps to minimize their effects on the operation. A free and open forum rather than a climate of dissonance must be fostered to prevent bottlenecks in the critical flow of information. Although this communication problem did not appear to have an impact on the ACC as a whole, it did affect communications between the North and the East specialties during this particular work shift. The Nuvilik radio controller was a trainee monitored by an OJI. In order to provide maximum benefit to the trainee under increasingly more difficult and challenging traffic conditions, the OJI is sometimes placed in a delicate position of allowing more and more freedom to the trainee as training progresses. The trainee was working under the authority of the OJI's ATC licence, and it is the OJI who retains the responsibility for ensuring that the requisite minimum separation standards are applied. When the Nuvilik data controller placed the flight data strip for N8MC containing the altitude restriction on the data board beside the trainee, it was the OJI, standing behind the trainee, who noticed it. The OJI, however, was not concerned that the restriction was not immediately passed, because he knew that the conflict between N8MC and BFF200 had to be solved first. The OJI maintained a stand-back posture although he was not positive of the exact position of the aircraft in relation to the assigned track, even after the altitude restriction for N8MC was cancelled by the trainee. The OJI allowed the situation to deteriorate into the loss of separation by not providing firmer guidance to the trainee to alleviate the uncertainty with respect to the aircraft's position. This loss of separation occurrence is classified as an air proximity event in which safety was not assured.Analysis There were two issues to be resolved by the Nuvilik radio controller before the restriction issued by the Ungava NADS controller could be issued to the aircraft. The first was the separation problem to be resolved with BFF200 before altering the route of N8MC. Secondly, the Nuvilik radio controller did not have a clear mental picture of where the coordinate 64N 070W was in relation to the flight; therefore, he was reluctant to issue this restriction until separation with the inbound BFF200 was assured. The radio controller did not have access to a plotting board as there was none at the sector at the time, and he could not off-centre his radar display because he was controlling traffic in the southern part of the combined sector. As a result, there was a delay in passing the revised clearance to the aircraft. The North specialty controller would have been aware that the coordinates for the altitude restriction for N8MC were close to Iqaluit, necessitating a quick relay to the aircraft in order to give the crew time to comply with this restriction. The North specialty controller, unaware that the Nuvilik radio controller was busy with other control duties, expected that the restriction would be passed immediately upon receipt. The fact that none of the Nuvilik sector controllers had a clear mental picture of the proximity of the restriction point to the point of departure further delayed the issuing of the information to the aircraft. The Nuvilik data controller became concerned that the restriction was not being passed, so in an effort to assist the radio controller, he plotted the revised course for N8MC on a vacant radar display and used the RBL function to plot the original and amended tracks for N8MC. In the rush to complete the task, the coordinates for the original track were entered in error, causing an RBL to be displayed that showed a false original track in relation to the amended track. The data controller did not intentionally plan to enter the wrong coordinates into the RDPS computer, resulting in an unintentional action that did not go as planned. This type of error occurs where actions are based on stored routines and there is little, if any, conscious decision making, as for example the largely automatic procedural routines of entering information to generate an RBL. The pre-conditions to these types of errors are distractions or preoccupations with other than the immediate task. In this case, incorrectly plotting the aircraft's position by the data controller was an error of inattention. As a result of the time pressures felt by the data controller, in that the aircraft was nearing Brevoort controlled airspace, the controller did not adequately check the coordinates he had entered before executing the command to display the RBL. The North specialty controller had two advantages over the Nuvilik controllers with respect to the altitude restriction as it applied to N8MC. Firstly, the North specialty was equipped with a NADS, which provided a visual display of the track based on the coordinates entered by the controller, as well as data derived from the flight plan. Secondly, the North specialty controllers were used to working with latitude and longitude coordinates on a routine basis, so they were familiar with the impact a change would have on the current track of an aircraft. The NADS is not available to the Nuvilik sector control positions. The North specialty controllers did not offer additional information to the Nuvilik sector controllers regarding the impact of the restriction on the initial track of N8MC, and the Nuvilik data controller chose to plot out the new track himself rather than ask the North specialty controllers. Strained communication between the North and East specialties affected the ease with which control information should have been exchanged and was more apparent between certain individuals than others. The Nuvilik data controller did not ask the North supervisor for clarification. The operation of the ATC system is dependant on complete and timely coordination between units in order to provide a safe and efficient environment for users of the system. Supervisors, as the first line of oversight within a particular unit, must be particularly aware of brewing conflicts and take immediate steps to minimize their effects on the operation. A free and open forum rather than a climate of dissonance must be fostered to prevent bottlenecks in the critical flow of information. Although this communication problem did not appear to have an impact on the ACC as a whole, it did affect communications between the North and the East specialties during this particular work shift. The Nuvilik radio controller was a trainee monitored by an OJI. In order to provide maximum benefit to the trainee under increasingly more difficult and challenging traffic conditions, the OJI is sometimes placed in a delicate position of allowing more and more freedom to the trainee as training progresses. The trainee was working under the authority of the OJI's ATC licence, and it is the OJI who retains the responsibility for ensuring that the requisite minimum separation standards are applied. When the Nuvilik data controller placed the flight data strip for N8MC containing the altitude restriction on the data board beside the trainee, it was the OJI, standing behind the trainee, who noticed it. The OJI, however, was not concerned that the restriction was not immediately passed, because he knew that the conflict between N8MC and BFF200 had to be solved first. The OJI maintained a stand-back posture although he was not positive of the exact position of the aircraft in relation to the assigned track, even after the altitude restriction for N8MC was cancelled by the trainee. The OJI allowed the situation to deteriorate into the loss of separation by not providing firmer guidance to the trainee to alleviate the uncertainty with respect to the aircraft's position. This loss of separation occurrence is classified as an air proximity event in which safety was not assured. Staffing in the Montreal Area Control Centre East specialty met unit standards. The Nuvilik combined sector controllers' workload was assessed as moderate. The East specialty supervisor was working at a control position, and the North specialty supervisor was acting as a stand-back supervisor/coordinator. There was no plotting board at the Nuvilik sector position, requiring the data controller to use a radar display to plot aircraft tracks. Some East specialty controllers are not familiar with latitude and longitude positions in relation to their normally used airports, geographic reference points, navigational aids, or air route intersections. The Nuvilik radio controller was not able to assess routing changes for N8MC without changing the centre of the radar indicator module, which would result in the loss of the radar display for the southern part of the sector. The Nuvilik sector did not have a NADS display to show relative tracks for N8MC and other relevant traffic. The Nuvilik trainee radio controller did not know the exact position of N8MC when the altitude restriction was cancelled, which led to the loss of separation. The OJI did not intervene in a timely manner to prevent the loss of separation when it was apparent to him that the trainee was unsure of the position of N8MC in relation to the aircraft's assigned track. The Nuvilik data controller entered the wrong coordinates when generating an RBL on a vacant radar display, and he did not detect the error. As a result, he advised the North specialty supervisor that N8MC was north of track rather than south of track, the aircraft's actual position. The Nuvilik data controller did not seek clarification from the North specialty controllers regarding the revised track for N8MC when he was unsure where the revised track was in relation to the aircraft's current track. The climate of dissonance that had been allowed to develop between some of the controllers in the East and North specialties contributed to the lack of communication.Findings Staffing in the Montreal Area Control Centre East specialty met unit standards. The Nuvilik combined sector controllers' workload was assessed as moderate. The East specialty supervisor was working at a control position, and the North specialty supervisor was acting as a stand-back supervisor/coordinator. There was no plotting board at the Nuvilik sector position, requiring the data controller to use a radar display to plot aircraft tracks. Some East specialty controllers are not familiar with latitude and longitude positions in relation to their normally used airports, geographic reference points, navigational aids, or air route intersections. The Nuvilik radio controller was not able to assess routing changes for N8MC without changing the centre of the radar indicator module, which would result in the loss of the radar display for the southern part of the sector. The Nuvilik sector did not have a NADS display to show relative tracks for N8MC and other relevant traffic. The Nuvilik trainee radio controller did not know the exact position of N8MC when the altitude restriction was cancelled, which led to the loss of separation. The OJI did not intervene in a timely manner to prevent the loss of separation when it was apparent to him that the trainee was unsure of the position of N8MC in relation to the aircraft's assigned track. The Nuvilik data controller entered the wrong coordinates when generating an RBL on a vacant radar display, and he did not detect the error. As a result, he advised the North specialty supervisor that N8MC was north of track rather than south of track, the aircraft's actual position. The Nuvilik data controller did not seek clarification from the North specialty controllers regarding the revised track for N8MC when he was unsure where the revised track was in relation to the aircraft's current track. The climate of dissonance that had been allowed to develop between some of the controllers in the East and North specialties contributed to the lack of communication. The loss of separation occurred when N8MC's altitude restriction was cancelled because the data controller inadvertently entered the wrong coordinates into the RDPS computer, resulting in a misinterpretation of the position of N8MC in relation to BAW279. Factors contributing to this occurrence were the lack of a plotting board at the Nuvilik sector, the East specialty controllers unfamiliarity with latitude/longitude coordinates in relation to their normally used control techniques, the strained interpersonal communication problems between some controllers in the East and North specialties, confusion among controllers as to how soon after receipt of an amendment the information must be relayed to the aircraft, the Nuvilik sector controller not issuing the revised route and altitude restriction to N8MC in a timely manner, the lack of an appropriate display in the Nuvilik sector to provide a more complete traffic picture for the controllers, and the OJI not intervening when he was unsure of the position of N8MC in relation to the outbound track.Causes and Contributing Factors The loss of separation occurred when N8MC's altitude restriction was cancelled because the data controller inadvertently entered the wrong coordinates into the RDPS computer, resulting in a misinterpretation of the position of N8MC in relation to BAW279. Factors contributing to this occurrence were the lack of a plotting board at the Nuvilik sector, the East specialty controllers unfamiliarity with latitude/longitude coordinates in relation to their normally used control techniques, the strained interpersonal communication problems between some controllers in the East and North specialties, confusion among controllers as to how soon after receipt of an amendment the information must be relayed to the aircraft, the Nuvilik sector controller not issuing the revised route and altitude restriction to N8MC in a timely manner, the lack of an appropriate display in the Nuvilik sector to provide a more complete traffic picture for the controllers, and the OJI not intervening when he was unsure of the position of N8MC in relation to the outbound track.